Letter: Unfriendly court

A couple of months ago when the 10th U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled against the South Lawrence Trafficway appeal in Denver, money spoke. As someone who’s read books like “Anti-Indianism in Modern America” by Dakota professor Elizabeth Cook Lynn and “Like a Loaded Weapon” by Lumbee professor and attorney Robert A. Williams Jr., I knew the U.S. Supreme Court to be no friend of Native peoples.

Justice William Rehnquist tutored current Justice John Roberts as a clerk and the racism of Justice Rehnquist against Native peoples was apparent in one of the first sacred sites cases in the Supreme Court. This case was Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery in 1988. The five justices in the majority ignored the religious rights of indigenous peoples but the U.S. Congress ruled the area in question as part of the Siskiyou Wilderness and nixed the road anyway. This Supreme Court likes Native American cases as much as they like health care bills.

The question remains though. Baker University has done much to disrespect the religious beliefs of the peoples whose land their school sits upon for the SLT. A campaign of disrespect and dismissal which I’ve witnessed firsthand after being war-whooped by Baker students at a Baker-Haskell basketball game a couple of years ago with parents of Haskell players and alumni witnessing this racism. Tribal lands were acquired partly through the manipulation of tribal governments by Protestant denominations and their missionaries in the 1850s. I guess college biologists do the dirty work now.

The trafficway through an old floodplain/pasture is not "anti-indian". To characterize it such is a petty use of the race card. Do you think the road wouldn't be built if it was property of a non-Indian entity? Answer: no, Baker U is not a Native American entity. Further, the land on both sides of the floodplain/pasture is not owned by Native Americans (outside of some possible exceptions) and the road is going through that land as well.

The last time Haskell played at Baker University for men's basketball is when this happened. It was a spirited game with a Haskell player dunking on two
Baker players. As Baker had a couple of taller players they eventually wore
out Haskell and won the game. All of the Haskell fans were sitting on the
east side of the court. Right before halftime, a number of fans on the rows
closest to the floor started going woo-woo-woo-woo with their hands
going over their mouths. I looked at Jeremy Shields, Lakota-Crow
alumni from Haskell who attended the game and I told him did you see that?
and he also saw it. As Baker came out to the third quarter under the stands
I confronted Coach Weaver about it. Needless to say Baker and Haskell
haven't played each other since.

Tusch, those events you describe were despicable and have no place in this country. That being said can you honestly say that is what conservatives do? Of course you asked those racist students their political leanings.

Your original arguments, valid as stated, were made a bit less by having to add your own bigotry.

I, too, remember playing both sides during childhood games, but it was more of reenacting the TV westerns shows at the time. In my mind it was no different than shirts vs skins games. We really had no idea the "real life" consequences of these games. It was only during college, in the 1960's, that I understood the cultural dynamics of the relationships of not only Native Americans to "whites", but also African Americans to "whites". But what my mom taught my brothers and myself is, we are all just people. We all bleed and are alike on the inside and everyone needs to be respected as people. Is that the liberal in me?

When all is said and done, this road is going to be built. I'm left wondering if all the money that has been spent by both sides during the past two decades had been used instead to restore wetlands elsewhere, how much benefit to the environment could we have had. Instead, it's all in the pockets of the lawyers.

I guess making racist comments is protected speech in the eyes of a coward
who hides behind the free speech comment to offend others....right liberty?

I guess the fact that places like the Devil's Tower in Wyoming, The Black
Hills in South Dakota, Canyon De Chelly in Arizona, The Okmulgee
Oldfields in Georgia, The Tequesta Circle in Miami which stopped
a multi million dollar high rise from being constructed, The Nunih
Waiya Mound in Mississippi or the Great Natchez Mound aren't
considered sacred by the descendants of the colonists who sit
in front of tv's watching fox learning nothing....I guess that goes
for four or five of you....

I love it when oblivious people think they can speak to what's
considered an honor while ignoring the people they offend.
I think you need to go buy about two or three $8 beers
to support your 1 win 5 loss pretendian team if you think
you can speak for the views of others whom you
don't care about offending anyway. caring would require
intelligence and that's obviously not part of many of the
commenter's repitoire on here today.

I'm glad you were manipulated on the whole manmade
wetlands thing by the baker manipulator. once he got
what he wanted he reverted like romney to going
very disengenously back to the concern he had before
he flip flopped in the early 1990's when Hank Booth
got to him.

I didn't expect any intellectual comments and you
all delivered as expected....bravo....yokoke....nahollo
ilbasha.....

This isn't Canada. If you want protection from offensive words, you will be safe in Canada. Google maps (http://maps.google.com/maps) will help you find the best route, although I'd recommend a GPS. Also, BC. Go to BC. If I hated the US, I'd go to Vancouver.

Tuschie - I'm sure you are quite proud of yourself for this incredible piece of logic and sticking it to "the man".

"I'm glad you were manipulated on the whole manmade wetlands thing by the baker manipulator. once he got what he wanted he reverted like romney to going very disengenously back to the concern he had before he flip flopped in the early 1990's when Hank Booth got to him."

But frankly, this paragraph makes no sense. My assumption here is that you are referring to Dr. Boyd as the "baker manipulator"? Who, exactly, do you think he manipulated? What do you believe he flipped on? Who is Hank Booth and how did he "get to him"? Did he threaten him? Was he Boyd's boss? Did he beat him up? Did he bribe Boyd? Tell us "Defender of the Dead", what did Hank Booth do?

You didn't "expect any intellectual comments"...and of course we all know that your "FOX NEWS" spin of "intellectual comments" means any comments that agreed with you. If they don't agree with you, they couldn't possibly be intelligent, could they? How narcissistic of you.

Mr. Booth threatened Mr. Boyd's employment unless he flipped his position
and he did so. This was in the early 1990's. The Booth name is associated
with KLWN Radio. I guess this is another thing you don't know about.
There was a time when Mr. Boyd was against the trafficway. I don't know how many flip
flops ago that was to be honest. You all played the manmade wetland story
to the point when most of the uneducated people grasping for catch phrases
in this fight latched onto this catch phrase. Regardless of what this land
has looked like very bad things happened due to White paternalism
towards Native peoples and their children on this land in the 19th
and early 20th century. Your denial of our historical and cultural
connection to that land is just an extention of this paternalism,

Dr. Boyd had tenure in the early 1990's so his job couldn't be threatened....one more thing you profess to know about and don't. Another example of your naccisistic loaded bull. I for one do not deny your historical or cultural connection to the land. What I deny is your claims that that will change after 10% of it is used for a road. You said yourself - "regardless of what this land has looked like..." So its going to look a little different than crop fields, and it will still hold the same spiritual connections.

"Regardless of what this land has looked like very bad things happened due to White paternalism towards Native peoples and their children on this land in the 19th and early 20th century. Your denial of our historical and cultural connection to that land is just an extention of this paternalism."

OK Tuschy, have it you way. On behalf of everyone on this blog, especially the white ones, I acknowledge that the white people who settled this part of Kansas were not always nice to the indiginous people who lived here at the time. I further stipulate that some of those indiginous people may have had a connection to the land the SLT is going through. You are 100% right on both counts. People who deny these two points are just being paternalistic like you say. Me and everyone else AGREES with you. These two points have never been in dispute. There. You have it writting. Save it. Frame it. Cherish it.

My question is: So what?

The land has been private property since before you and I were born. Your two "facts" do not in any way deprive the owners of the land from their ability to exercise their private property rights. The courts have ruled and said as much.

This is a fact too, but you won't acknowledge this, will you? If you did the pretext for your histrionics would end, wouldn't it?

1988 Arden Booth, owner of KLWN Radio, writes a letter April 11 to Baker University President Dan Lambert containing a veiled threat that a boycott by major Baker donors will ensue if he doesn't muzzle or fire Prof. Roger Boyd, Baker Wetlands Manager who publicly advocates a South of the Wakarusa route. Boyd does change his position and supports a 31st Street route. However, in a May2, 1994, letter to the Douglas County Commission, he returns to his original position of opposing any route North of the Wakarusa River.

from a clark coan website....nice to know they don't teach the children like
idaho how to do research at a college like Baker that charges close
to $30k a year for full tuition. Idaho....you remind me of these kids I've
set next to in the Baker library who don't footnote and don't know how
to do research. snap, when a conservative doesn't know history
just call the person who does names. I'm sure you're the smartest
kid on the playground.

Research, Smesearch...once again you have NO IDEA what you are talking about you narcissistic load of bull! You said it was Hank Booth, now you say it is Arden Booth. And you criticize Dr. Boyd for changing his story? Researching the internet is hardly valid, especially when you are talking about quotes. Clark Coan's blog is full of misinformation, so if you rely on what Clark thinks he knows rather than any actual documents, you are using more bull to support your rationales. Yes, Dr. Boyd did change his mind, and so do you. I have given you rationales that Dr. Boyd gave us in class for why he changed his mind...but since you don't want to know the whole story you repeatedly ignore it. Way to go, whitie!

I remember when Mr. Boyd was against the road. I lived in Kansas in the early
1990's when you were probably in grade school. I knew about the flip flop
from hearing about it when I got involved in this fight back in 1998-1999.
Where were you then? you all will not admit any wrongdoing here like
denying americans. you are soooo tone deaf that even if you were confronted
with empirical evidence to the contrary you would take the chicken way out
and call me whitie. I call you all white people because you have a record
of owning nothing that you do to offend Native Americans and when you
do admit anything you don't want to have to return any lands. I've seen
numerous pointless reconciliation ceremonies to prove this fact.
Your history is about nothing but theft, appropriation, and redesignation.
I remember your line of denial at the Army Corps of Engineers hearings
at the Dg County fairgrounds in 2003. I know Clark Coan. I trust
his information way more than yours because all you're about is denial.
Science like any other discipline is about proposing hypothesis,
doing research, and respecting the boundaries and not putting
one's self above the fray due to money. You know that whole integrity
thing. Just like the climate science clowns who sell themselves to the right
wing denial factory as Inupiat people in Alaska and the Arctic
have their ancestral grounds become open water due to White
denial. How many minorities have to suffer due to White denial?

Facts is facts, Jack. If Clark Coan got it wrong in his blog, it doesn't matter what you "FEEL", he's still wrong. Just like you are when you keep repeating that the Baker Wetlands have sandy soils (wetlands never have sandy soils unless there are impenetrable layers underneath). Oh, but if it has to do with indigenous people then you know all and everything must cater to their desires. You may whine all you want but the Baker Wetlands property ownership issue is not about tribals land, sweetheart. It was owned by Dept of Interior (BIA) and was transferred to GSA and then to HEW. It was not owned by any individual tribal, nor was it held in trust for any individual tribe, or group of tribes.

yeah when the BIA was ran by white people who gave away lands to their friends
just like when most of eastern kansas was stolen through corrupt agents
and manypenny treaties in 1854-55. You fail to realize the offensiveness
of your actions in calling people sweetheart. shallow as usual.
snap.....you actually having something worthwhile and empricial
to say is amusing.....

"yeah when the BIA was ran by white people who gave away lands to their friends just like when most of eastern kansas was stolen through corrupt agents and manypenny treaties in 1854-55."
What are you talking about? My point is that the transfer of land to Baker was legal. If you don't like who did it in BIA it is not Baker's problem - its yours. And besides, you have already forgotten it was not BIA that gave it to Baker U. It was HEW.
Calling you "sweetheart" was meant to be offensive. Glad you were able to figure that out. But then again it is not as offensive as you referring to Roger Boyd as Mr. Boyd when his real title is Dr. Boyd to you. You are disrespectful. And calling everyone a troll or racist just because they don't agree with you is equally disrespectful and offensive. If you can't be more respectful then you shouldn't be surprised when people don't give you any respect. Understand, sweetheart?